Quid pro quo?
“…the use of a private email system to conduct official business added an increased degree of risk”
“Bandwidth” and bombshells.
Plus: The return of an Amigo?
“… profoundly disappointed that he will not be able to testify today.”
WSJ: Leveraging meeting to get Burisma probe.
Persona non grata.
And if not, why?
Off target but aiming in the right direction.
“To be great is to be misunderstood.”
“At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton…”
Politically dicey, but with a purpose
“Actively undermining U.S. policy as a former Secretary of State is literally unheard of.”
Or perhaps more to the point, why now?
“I’m going to blow the whistle on all of it.”
Even for this “incredible offer”?
“This team has proven itself incapable of managing the State Department.”
“We do not know why the U.S. government decided to emit this alert.”
Symbolic sanctions and cautious openings.
“I did not expect them to be shared with anyone in the U.S. government.”
Less than meets the eye
“This movement is textbook populism, full of magical thinking.”
“This decision was not taken lightly …”
“I have never considered leaving this post.”
USCCB to Vatican: Be transparent.
Everything old is new again
“it has not taken serious steps to end its own complicity in trafficking, including forced laborers from North Korea.”
“Freedom is only possible when this ‘virus’ in their thinking is eradicated…”
“This is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement.”
There should be questions